Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gideongreen2 sentences1999A claim that the departure factors relied upon by the court do not constitute substantial and compelling reasons for a departure is a question of law.” “The court’s comments at the time of sentencing govern as to the reasons for departure.” 257 Kan. at 623 . 1999A claim that the departure factors are not supported by evidence in the record should be reviewed to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings or whether they are clearly erroneous. 257 Kan. at 622-23 . | 1 | 10 |
State v. Richardsongreen1 sentence1995See State v. Richardson, 20 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Favela
green
2 sentences2000The landmark Kansas case dealing with downward departures, State v. Favela, 259 Kan. 215 , Syl. ¶ 6, 911 P.2d 792 (1996), states: “A claim that the departure factors relied upon by the sentencing court do not constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law.” Favela interpreted K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4719(b)(1) to give appellate courts authority to review the extent of downward durational departures and reasoned that “since the power to review the extent of departures is based on a mere inference, an appellate court should not give itself more power than the legis 2000The landmark Kansas case dealing with downward departures, State v. Favela, 259 Kan. 215 , Syl. ¶ 6, 911 P.2d 792 (1996), states: “A claim that the departure factors relied upon by the sentencing court do not constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law.” Favela interpreted K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4719(b)(1) to give appellate courts authority to review the extent of downward durational departures and reasoned that “since the power to review the extent of departures is based on a mere inference, an appellate court should not give itself more power than the legis | 3 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1999In State v. Jackson, 262 Kan. 119, 134 , 936 P.2d 761 (1997), we stated: “A claim that the departure factors relied upon by the sentencing court do not constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law for which an appellate court’s review is unlimited. 1999In State v. Jackson, 262 Kan. 119, 134 , 936 P.2d 761 (1997), we stated: “A claim that the departure factors relied upon by the sentencing court do not constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law for which an appellate court’s review is unlimited. | 2 | 1999–2004 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2000State v. Mitchell, 262 Kan. 434, 446 , 939 P.2d 879 (1997). 2000State v. Mitchell, 262 Kan. 434, 446 , 939 P.2d 879 (1997). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Cox
green
2 sentences1999State v. Cox, 258 Kan. 557, 575 , 908 P.2d 603 (1995); State v. Gideon, 257 Kan. 591 , Syl. ¶ 20, 894 P.2d 850 (1995). 1999State v. Cox, 258 Kan. 557, 575 , 908 P.2d 603 (1995); State v. Gideon, 257 Kan. 591 , Syl. ¶ 20, 894 P.2d 850 (1995). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. French
green
1 sentence2000See Gideon, 257 Kan. at 622-23 ; State v. French, 26 Kan. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.